Jump to content

Proven Conspiracy Theories


sjc

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Miguel Sanchez said:

:lol:

Of all the 9/11 truther bullshit, anyone who uses the word "aluminium" is unquestionably the worst of the lot. I just don't get how you be that gullible/wilfully idiotic/paranoid to even consider that as an angle.

Go and throw an empty coke tin at a brick wall and see if it falls down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Alan Stubbs said:

I find it curious that hardcore conspiracy theorists always bring up stuff like Operation Northwoods  Most of these people think the Government is lying about absolutely everything but once a declassified report confirms their particular worldview, CIA memos and federal Government archives are to be taken as gospel. DdHDBUq.png

Especially as it was dismissed as daft when suggested, and the proposer was sacked, and shifted to a high profile position with less power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Miguel Sanchez said:

100k+ kilos of aircraft with thousands of gallons of fuel on board hits a solid object at 500 mph

"It would disintegrate on impact"

top kek

I guess I am being pedantic but 500 mph is when the plane is at cruising altitude. Only a thousand feet up it only be around 180 mph.

Still incredibly fast with the obvious outcome.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, D.A.F.C said:

It really is amazing that so many people believe that there was some sort of real conspiracy to what happened to the towers structurally as a result of the planes hitting them. For me it hides the question of how a bunch of disorganised terrorists pulled this off. It certainly suited the hawkish government of the time. Not saying they were behind it but perhaps turned a blind eye on it?

Did it really suit the hawkish government? It cost the US economy billions of dollars and made them look incompetent and gave them an excuse to invade a country that nobody would want to invade.

Is the US more powerful and impressive because of 9/11?  No.

Edited by Fullerene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

What is it about 9/11 that attracts the cranks?

For most of them the fact that it happened in their own country.

Also, as Welshbairn already stated, it was all so cheap and easy to do.  Very discomforting. Much better to believe some massive conspiracy was behind it so it is unlikely to happen again.

Edited by Fullerene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MixuFixit said:

What is it about 9/11 that attracts the cranks?

Quote

 

Researchers suggest that there are a number of different reasons why people believe in conspiracy theories. Many of these explanations boil down to three key driving factors:

A need for understanding and consistency (epistemic)
A need for control (existential)
A need to belong or feel special (social)

 

https://www.verywellmind.com/why-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories-4690335

I think these three motivations sum it up.

They are shown what they believe to be inconsistencies in the way the building fell. So they rely on intuition to "feel" which explanation appeals to them the most, then they build or buy into the rationalisations for it. 

It appeals to a sense that malevolent forces are acting against their interest Look at the way many Brexiters feel Brussels acts or "red pillers" the liberal elite. For many right wing Americans the sense the Republicans are in cahoots with dark shadowey neocons and undermining the virginal purity of the constitution and Republic helps explain why right wing governments have not brought improving material well being for them. 

10 minutes of youtube videos and they feel smarter and more informed than people with years in specialist learning on a topic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not too sure why, but listened to a podcast with David Icke yesterday, a truly odd fucking bloke. First of all, the term "Conspiracy Theory/Theorist" was made up by the CIA in the late 60s to try and make anybody questioning the JFK murder look to be a bit crazy. 

He touched on 9/11 talking about Building 7, and how nobody knew it had gone down etc. 

Also the Diana death was because she knew too much, and they had her genetics anyway, so could get rid. 

Lastly if you have depression or anxiety, just think you don't and you'll be just fine. 

A truly batshit mental guy. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it so hard to believe that fundamentalists backed by a billionaire, who were opposed to US foreign policy and influence their region (Israel being a particular sore point) would commit an atrocity?

The US economy took a massive dive as a result. America's business is business. There's no way they would inflict so much carnage on themselves.

It's like Barry wanting to bomb the mosque on Four Lions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MixuFixit said:

What is it about 9/11 that attracts the cranks?

Probably because there are so many inaccuracies in the story?

The plane that crashed into the pentagon can only have been flown by an expert due to how low it flew to the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Adam101 said:

...The plane that crashed into the pentagon can only have been flown by an expert due to how low it flew to the ground.

Or maybe he just got very lucky? You are taking that a step too far in logic terms and beyond that is it an irrefutable fact that the flight path was very difficult or could it be an urban myth that has built up? Think the cause and effect relationship of large planes with lots of jet fuel hitting buildings that later collapsed at the WTC should be an obvious one and people who bring up the melting point of steel are losing sight of this being a highly unusual set of circumstances.

Where I have nagging doubts over the official narrative is whether the fourth plane could have been shot down given the reasons for doing that and then covering it up should be obvious enough, and whether Building 7 could have been a hastily arranged controlled demolition given the high security nature of some of the offices that were in that building. The implication of a lot of the Alex Jones type "documentaries" is that if Building 7 was a controlled demolition then the Twin Towers had to be as well but that's a complete non-sequitur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Or maybe he just got very lucky? You are taking that a step too far in logic terms and beyond that is it an irrefutable fact that the flight path was very difficult or could it be an urban myth that has built up? Think the cause and effect relationship of large planes with lots of jet fuel hitting buildings that later collapsed at the WTC should be an obvious one and people who bring up the melting point of steel are losing sight of this being a highly unusual set of circumstances.

Where I have nagging doubts over the official narrative is whether the fourth plane could have been shot down given the reasons for doing that and then covering it up should be obvious enough, and whether Building 7 could have been a hastily arranged controlled demolition given the high security nature of some of the offices that were in that building. The implication of a lot of the Alex Jones type "documentaries" is that if Building 7 was a controlled demolition then the Twin Towers had to be as well but that's a complete non-sequitur.

You can't  'hastily arrange' a controlled demolition, takes weeks of preparation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dorlomin said:

They are shown what they believe to be inconsistencies in the way the building fell. So they rely on intuition to "feel" which explanation appeals to them the most, then they build or buy into the rationalisations for it. 

 

34 minutes ago, Adam101 said:

Probably because there are so many inaccuracies in the story?

The plane that crashed into the pentagon can only have been flown by an expert due to how low it flew to the ground.

Is this your personal intuition or the consensus view of pilots across the world. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Or maybe he just got very lucky? You are taking that a step too far in logic terms and beyond that is it an irrefutable fact that the flight path was very difficult or could it be an urban myth that has built up? Think the cause and effect relationship of large planes with lots of jet fuel hitting buildings that later collapsed at the WTC should be an obvious one and people who bring up the melting point of steel are losing sight of this being a highly unusual set of circumstances.

Where I have nagging doubts over the official narrative is whether the fourth plane could have been shot down given the reasons for doing that and then covering it up should be obvious enough, and whether Building 7 could have been a hastily arranged controlled demolition given the high security nature of some of the offices that were in that building. The implication of a lot of the Alex Jones type "documentaries" is that if Building 7 was a controlled demolition then the Twin Towers had to be as well but that's a complete non-sequitur.

There is luck and then there is manoeuvring a commercial passenger plane so that it appears to Air Traffic control that it's a fighter plane.

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane"

Building 7 is strange and doubt very much any of their theories about that sad day will ever go away

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dorlomin said:

 

Is this your personal intuition or the consensus view of pilots across the world. :rolleyes:

It is the view of air traffic control - the way it was flown was similar to that of a military jet not a commercial jet, to perform like that he would need to be able to have experience of flying jets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Adam101 said:

There is luck and then there is manoeuvring a commercial passenger plane so that it appears to Air Traffic control that it's a fighter plane.

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane"

>>>>source goes here<<<<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Adam101 said:

There is luck and then there is manoeuvring a commercial passenger plane so that it appears to Air Traffic control that it's a fighter plane.

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane"

Building 7 is strange and doubt very much any of their theories about that sad day will ever go away

I doubt they had much experience of watching a suicidal pilot with next to no experience and normal operating parameters the last thing on his mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...